I was looking on the Yahoo L21 group spreadsheet and most of the highest continental variance for L21 is found among the L21's in the north and east France category. In particular, I was looking at the mutations on the very slow and slow markers. Individually, there are some diverse L21's in Spain, Italy, North Atlantic France, but a cluster of higher variance is in this North East region.

When I applied this to members of the P312* project, I'm seeing the highest variance in the Eastern Europe members followed by Scandinavia, Germany, and surprisingly Iberia (mostly because of the Portuguese members). France, the low countries, Switzerland, Italy, and most of the Isles were more closer to the modals. Scotland, however, was similiar to Iberia and Germany, but lower than Scandinavia and East Europe. This is also for the markers designated very slow and slow.

I don't really understand all of the dynamics of founder effects, drift, etc., so this might mean very little in the big picture of things. At the very least though, it suggests a P312* expansion from east to the west. I'm guessing, of course, that the L21 node man was born along the Rhine, maybe Alsace/Lorraine/Champagne or Palatinate Ger. region. This area is very central to a number of rivers including the Rhine, Moselle, Marne, Seine, and the Rhone somewhat.

When I applied this to members of the P312* project, I'm seeing the highest variance in the Eastern Europe members followed by Scandinavia, Germany, and surprisingly Iberia (mostly because of the Portuguese members). France, the low countries, Switzerland, Italy, and most of the Isles were more closer to the modals. Scotland, however, was similiar to Iberia and Germany, but lower than Scandinavia and East Europe. This is also for the markers designated very slow and slow.

I don't really understand all of the dynamics of founder effects, drift, etc., so this might mean very little in the big picture of things. At the very least though, it suggests a P312* expansion from east to the west. I'm guessing, of course, that the L21 node man was born along the Rhine, maybe Alsace/Lorraine/Champagne or Palatinate Ger. region. This area is very central to a number of rivers including the Rhine, Moselle, Marne, Seine, and the Rhone somewhat.

Very interesting about P312*. I suspect you may be on to something here. I will say it doesn't surprise me.

Also your thinking about the location of the birth of L21 essentailly mirrors my own, though I would add the upper Danube and probably eliminate the Rhone.

Here is my proposition for how R1b subclades may have become so dominant in western Europe. I would imagine some will find it upsetting if not horrifying, but I throw it out for consideration. If Jean is correct that R1b arrived with metal technology (including weapons), horses and wheeled vehicles, they would have had an enormous military advantage over people that had none of these things. This would have allowed them to dominate the previous inhabitants in comparatively short order. Then the elite dominance theory applies, where the elite reproduce at a much higher rate.No, I am not suggesting genocide or a wipe out of the previous inhabitants. What I am suggesting is a scenario with parallels with the colonization by Europeans of the New World. Within a couple of centuries of their arrival, they had largely displaced the native inhabitants, at least in much of North America. I don't contend it was exactly the same situation, but I think something similar may well have happened.Of course there is no proof that this occurred, but I do think it provides a logical answer to how R1b largely replaced earlier haplogroups in western Europe.

"What I am suggesting is a scenario with parallels with the colonization by Europeans of the New World. Within a couple of centuries of their arrival, they had largely displaced the native inhabitants, at least in much of North America."

What you are describing sounds eerily similar to Manifest Destiny and Westward expansion.

I tend to think that L21 arose in a time of metal technology as well. It would allow these people to take advantage of clearing land, building more effective boats (for river travel) and ferries (for moving horses,wagons, large groups of people) than had been done before. It does explain how R1b is able to expand rapidly across the west. Sure, there were watercraft going back 1000s of years, but bronze would make it alot easier than flint or stone.

With a possibly older P312 in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, this is largely Funnelbeaker and later Corded-ware territory from roughly 4000 BC until 1800 BC. For the archaeology experts, could the Baden culture be a possible connection for tying p312 or other r1b to Funnelbeaker and then an emerging Beaker culture around the Danube? Basically this is a scenario where R1b is numerous among Funnelbeaker and is pushed south and west with the advent of the Corded Ware transition. This also assumes an R1b origin from Neolithic Balkan farmers (then primarily LBK and Lengyel of Poland). I just want to see what we can possibly rule out.

If Jean is correct that R1b arrived with metal technology (including weapons), horses and wheeled vehicles, they would have had an enormous military advantage over people that had none of these things. This would have allowed them to dominate the previous inhabitants in comparatively short order.

That used to be the favoured explanation for the dominance of the Indo-Europeans. Naturally there has been a backlash against it. "Invasion" was not a popular concept in the post-war and post-imperial age. To avoid raising hackles, Indo-Europeanist scholars like Mallory and Anthony tend to skirt the issue. I am fully prepared to allow for invasions in prehistory, since plenty have been recorded since we have had writing. It happens. However, I suspect that the truth is too complex to reduce to a single explanation.

In Iberia there is evidence of warfare in this period. The mere fact that Zambujal and Los Millares were fortified is a big clue that there was a sense of settling in hostile territory and/or fearing raids from the sea. But it is not clear (to me) who was fighting whom. It is quite possible that our incoming metal-prospectors fought each other at times for the best territory.

Likewise the metal-prospectors and workers who moved east of the Urals had fortified settlements. And the Sardinian nuraghi are famous. The use of chariots in warfare in the Near East seems to have been an Indo-European import.

But in the British Isles, the picture is one of peaceful integration, as far as anyone can tell. Over quite a swathe of Europe the farmers had hit hard times centuries before the metal-workers turned up. Population levels dropped to next to nothing in Germany and Poland around 4,700 BC, to judge by the number of sites.

For the archaeology experts, could the Baden culture be a possible connection for tying p312 or other r1b to Funnelbeaker and then an emerging Beaker culture around the Danube?

Funnel Beaker (ca 4000 BC–2700 BC) is earlier than Baden (ca 3600 BC-ca 2800 BC). Both have cultural links to the SE, but naturally archaeologists cannot present any certain picture about what was going on. Baden is in the right place and time to be the cradle of my hypothesised Proto-Italo-Celtic. Bell Beaker follows on from it in that area.

If Jean is correct that R1b arrived with metal technology (including weapons), horses and wheeled vehicles, they would have had an enormous military advantage over people that had none of these things. This would have allowed them to dominate the previous inhabitants in comparatively short order.

That used to be the favoured explanation for the dominance of the Indo-Europeans. Naturally there has been a backlash against it. "Invasion" was not a popular concept in the post-war and post-imperial age. To avoid raising hackles, Indo-Europeanist scholars like Mallory and Anthony tend to skirt the issue. I am fully prepared to allow for invasions in prehistory, since plenty have been recorded since we have had writing. It happens. However, I suspect that the truth is too complex to reduce to a single explanation.

In Iberia there is evidence of warfare in this period. The mere fact that Zambujal and Los Millares were fortified is a big clue that there was a sense of settling in hostile territory and/or fearing raids from the sea. But it is not clear (to me) who was fighting whom. It is quite possible that our incoming metal-prospectors fought each other at times for the best territory.

Likewise the metal-prospectors and workers who moved east of the Urals had fortified settlements. And the Sardinian nuraghi are famous. The use of chariots in warfare in the Near East seems to have been an Indo-European import.

But in the British Isles, the picture is one of peaceful integration, as far as anyone can tell. Over quite a swathe of Europe the farmers had hit hard times centuries before the metal-workers turned up. Population levels dropped to next to nothing in Germany and Poland around 4,700 BC, to judge by the number of sites.

I am fully aware that the concept of invasion has been highly unpopular amongst many academics for some time. I also beleive much of archaeology is a matter of interpretation, and that those with a prejudice against the concept can find ways to ignore or dismiss any interpretations that might tend to support it. Take Francis Pryor for example. Even the general avoidance of the issue by Mallory and Anthony suggests the concept is "strengstens verboten" (strictly forbidden). Obviously the current popularity of any concept does not necessarily have any connection with it's accuracy.

Since "invasion" is a word with many negative connotations, I prefer to use the term migration. I doubt the early European settlers in North America thought of themselves as invaders, though those they displaced may well have considered them as such. I also doubt many of the settlers had any intention or desire to replace or obliterate the indigenoius population.

I fully concur that simplistic answers are no solution to complex problems, and I do not suggest this is the only factor to be considered. But I do think that the concept I suggest is a possible way of explaining how R1b may have come to so completely dominate western Europe, and shouldn't be off the table for discussion. Apparently that makes me a "pseudo racialist Aryan revivalist" in the eyes of some, or a "Kuganist with a brain the size of a pea" in others.

Funnel Beaker (ca 4000 BC–2700 BC) is earlier than Baden (ca 3600 BC-ca 2800 BC). Both have cultural links to the SE, but naturally archaeologists cannot present any certain picture about what was going on. Baden is in the right place and time to be the cradle of my hypothesised Proto-Italo-Celtic. Bell Beaker follows on from it in that area.

This is interesting. Baden people would have been in Hungary about the time the Yamnaya people were arriving there (3100-2800). I wonder if Baden were the proto-beakers who started moving west and became what we know as Bellbeaker. Perhaps there was a long enough interaction sphere to develop the Italo-celtic dialect, technology,etc. from the steppe people. The other possiblity is that the people who would become Beakers were from the steppe themselves.

This is interesting. Baden people would have been in Hungary about the time the Yamnaya people were arriving there (3100-2800).

The movement up the Danube around 3000 BC is just the most prominent of more than a millennium of contact via the Danube, with a first wave moving up the Danube from the Steppe 4,200 BC. We cannot be certain of the genetic make-up of these people without aDNA. However the Late Baden culture is clearly steppe-influenced. To quote myself:

Quote

Either by the spread of ideas or people, Yamnaya influenced cultures including Late Baden and Makó in the Carpathian Basin, Remedello in northern Italy, Funnel Beaker, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, and Bell Beaker in northern and western Europe.

Quote

The other possibility is that the people who would become Beakers were from the steppe themselves.

Exactly. There is a clear archaeological trail from the south/central European steppe (round about the Sea of Azov) to Iberia via northern Italy, marked by anthropomorphic stelae, plus various other items of an originally Yamnaya cultural package, which morphs into the Bell Beaker package, once these people start making Bell Beaker pottery (in Portugal probably). The earliest dates for Bell Beaker pottery are all along this southern route between Iberia and Italy. The next earliest is in Hungary.

So you can imagine a trade route being set up between the Carpathian Basin (the mother culture) and Iberia by the Stelae People, who become the first Beaker people. Bell Beaker pottery travels by this route back to the mother culture. It then spreads out from there along new routes from the upper Danube, down the Oder, Vistula, Elbe, but most prominently the Rhine, and from there into the British Isles.

Is there any evidence of the Baden culture having any all over corded or early beaker style pottery types? If so, the start of Baden at 3600 provides a good head start for that type pottery to show up in Zambujal?,Portugal around 2900.

On a side and possibly related note, I have a book called The Origins of War and in it, the author mentions evidence of an uptick in Neolithic warfare in SE France among the Treilles culture. The author mentions the increasing use of piercing arrows starting around 3500 and lasting into the Beaker period. Also, about the same time, in the Seine-Oise-Marne culture in NE France there was a similiar phenomenon occuring. This might be just tribal conflict among late farming groups or the first sign of encroaching steppe cultures.

Here is my proposition for how R1b subclades may have become so dominant in western Europe. I would imagine some will find it upsetting if not horrifying, but I throw it out for consideration. If Jean is correct that R1b arrived with metal technology (including weapons), horses and wheeled vehicles, they would have had an enormous military advantage over people that had none of these things. This would have allowed them to dominate the previous inhabitants in comparatively short order. Then the elite dominance theory applies, where the elite reproduce at a much higher rate.No, I am not suggesting genocide or a wipe out of the previous inhabitants. What I am suggesting is a scenario with parallels with the colonization by Europeans of the New World. Within a couple of centuries of their arrival, they had largely displaced the native inhabitants, at least in much of North America. I don't contend it was exactly the same situation, but I think something similar may well have happened.Of course there is no proof that this occurred, but I do think it provides a logical answer to how R1b largely replaced earlier haplogroups in western Europe.

I have drawn parallels with Europeans and North America. I could almost see the Cavalry Forts as Hillforts. :)

Findings at a hillfort in England i believe had tanged and leaf shaped flint arrowheads. could this represent the two different warring people?

I have drawn parallels with Europeans and North America. I could almost see the Cavalry Forts as Hillforts. :)

Findings at a hillfort in England i believe had tanged and leaf shaped flint arrowheads. could this represent the two different warring people?

There is evidence of burning and destruction at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge, as well, with grooved ware pottery (if I recall correctly) in the burnt layer and beaker pottery above it, after the destruction.

Is there any evidence of the Baden culture having any all over corded or early beaker style pottery types?

If it did, it would be called the Bell Beaker Culture, not the Baden Culture. :)

The origin of Bell Beaker ware has been debated for decades, with all sorts of claims being strenuously argued. But the radiocarbon dates have scuppered the free-for-all. They make it crystal clear where Bell Beaker started and it wasn't in the Baden Culture. However the roots of both the bell shape shape and the cord-impressed decoration can be traced to the steppe, where the earliest pottery in Europe appeared (in connection with a forager culture, not farming.) This pottery had the everted lip later found in Funnel Beaker and Bell Beaker. Cord-impression is found on several types of Yamna and related ware.

Once we understand that, it all starts to make sense. We can understand how similar types of pottery (Funnel Beaker, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker) could crop up in different places, but with a trail that leads back to the European steppe in each case.

Findings at a hillfort in England i believe had tanged and leaf shaped flint arrowheads. could this represent the two different warring people?

Hillforts are a mainly a later development in Britain - Iron Age - and seem to relate to inter-tribal raiding and warfare. But the first hilltop enclosures do appear earlier - c. 2000 BC. What was the site?

There is evidence of burning and destruction at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge, as well, with grooved ware pottery (if I recall correctly) in the burnt layer and beaker pottery above it, after the destruction.

There is evidence of burning and destruction at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge, as well, with grooved ware pottery (if I recall correctly) in the burnt layer and beaker pottery above it, after the destruction.

You sure about this? Just added to the Mini-library an article on Stonehenge, Durrington Walls and Bell Beaker by Mike Parker Pearson et al (2007). Couldn't spot this.

There is evidence of burning and destruction at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge, as well, with grooved ware pottery (if I recall correctly) in the burnt layer and beaker pottery above it, after the destruction.

You sure about this? Just added to the Mini-library an article on Stonehenge, Durrington Walls and Bell Beaker by Mike Parker Pearson et al (2007). Couldn't spot this.

I'm only sure about it to the extent that I know I read about it a couple of years ago and even cited the source over at dna-forums (the forum that should not be named) somewhere. I bookmarked that source on my old computer, but I don't have it on this one and haven't been able to find it yet.

There is evidence of burning and destruction at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge, as well, with grooved ware pottery (if I recall correctly) in the burnt layer and beaker pottery above it, after the destruction.

You sure about this? Just added to the Mini-library an article on Stonehenge, Durrington Walls and Bell Beaker by Mike Parker Pearson et al (2007). Couldn't spot this.

I'm only sure about it to the extent that I know I read about it a couple of years ago and even cited the source over at dna-forums (the forum that should not be named) somewhere. I bookmarked that source on my old computer, but I don't have it on this one and haven't been able to find it yet.

I figured out the advanced search over there. Is this the article?

Quote from: Current Archeology

Where did he come from?

This is the most controversial aspect of all.

Our teeth contain oxygen, and the oxygen has three different forms, called isotopes, and as we grow up, our teeth preserve the isotopes of the water we drank when we were young. Oxygen isotope analysis of the archer's teeth suggests that he was brought up on the continent. The map (left) shows the modern isotope values, and the Archer's teeth showed values in the blue/green band ( marked between 9 and 10), stretching in a band from Switzerland up to Scandinavia.

This presents a dramatic challenge to current academic interpretations of the Early Bronze Age. Traditionally, 'beakers' were held to mark the spread of a 'Beaker folk' across Europe, in a huge prehistoric migration, similar to the Greek migrations of the early Iron Age,or to the Germanic and Viking migrations in the Dark Ages at the end of the Roman era.

However over the past 20 years, many academics have challenged this view, and argued that the spread of beakers marked the spread of a beaker 'cult package' and that there were no migrations at all. The discovery of the Amesbury Archer suggests that this view is sheer nonsense and that there really were beaker invasion after all - here is a beaker invader.

If so, this has an important corollary. It has long been recognised that what little pottery has been discovered associated with the stone phases of Stonehenge is beaker. However the nearby monument at Durrington Walls is filled with 'Grooved Ware' pottery, with beaker only found in the upper, destruction layers when the site was destroyed or abandoned.

Is this Amesbury Archer therefore, the leader of the beaker invaders? Was he the man who led the attack on Durrington, after which it was abandoned? And in place of Durrington, did he decide to build an even more elaborate monument not far away on what had hitherto been a subsidiary site at Stonehenge? If so, he was not so much the King of Stonehenge as rather the founder of Stonehenge. He ordered the construction of the monument, and was buried on a site where from which his spirit could see it arise.